What? Yet another vote for Mack without voting on other finalists first???
The saga continues.... Please see the Patch article regarding the appointment of legal counsel to BCWA: http://patch.com/A-164C
As the ratepayers pointed out, the 4-3 vote was not legal. Ms. Mack was in the room at the time of the vote. The ethical thing for her to do would have been to advise the board at that time that 4 votes was not enough and to move on to vote on the other finalists. (I know, I know..... much too much to expect...) So, the will be voting, yet again, on the legal RFP. (Do you get the impression that they have already decided not to make any changes?)
From the article:
"Marchand also said that the board may also recommend a contract with one of four other firms who applied — Keough & Sweeney, LTD; Schacht & McElroy; Petrarca & McGair; and Adler Pollock & Sheehan — if a third vote on Cameron & Mittleman should be unsuccessful." [emphasis added]
The above statement is totally unacceptable! There should not be a third vote on Cameron & Mittleman until there has been a vote for the other two finalists. What are they thinking? That they can just keep holding votes, over and over again, until the get the result that they desire??? The implication here is that there has to now be a "third vote" on Mack and that there is somehow an underlying acknowledgement that "the board" really wants to retain Mack. But "they" didn't know they needed 5 votes and so let's let them have a "do over" on Mack so that they can stack the deck with 5 who will vote for her. Kind of an assumption that if they had known the real rules, they would have made it come out 5 for Mack. But the problem is that SHE was the lawyer who let them do it "wrong" over and over, including that - now we're supposed to believe that none of the board members even knew they needed 5 votes - and SHE didn't tell them!
This is outrageous folks! Please comment on the article and, if possible, call your Town Councilors and appointed directors to let them know it is time for a change!
As I have mentioned before, we also have a scenario here where many other "illegal" votes may have been passed with less than five votes, assuming that they relly didn't "know" five was required.
I know that we all agree that, in order to get our water authority on the right track, we need competent legal counsel. Ms. Mack is way beyond the "three strikes and you're out" phase.
Jack Baillargeron
11:58 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
So let me get this straight. If the Chairman of the board is on vacation, then the other 8 members are are in the dark and nothing can be done?
I thought Roberts rules allowed for this by a "pro-tempe" chairman in the absense of the Chairmen, Usually the Secretary or treasurer to my Knowledge.
The fact that all board business is now held up is no way to run a Company, by dismissing the "RULES" you are required by "LAW" to follow. This is also a requirement that is suppose to be in the By-laws of any organization, i.e. "RULES" for meeting's and obviously must comply with "STATE LAWS AND REGULATION'S".
A simple thing any Lawyer should know not to mention the BOARD".
After 20 years of being control along with the "LAWYER" advising the Board; They do not know these simple answers!!!!!!! Nor does the new current Director who is suppose to be so knowledgable of how to run this BCWA. This smells to high heaven. The sewage plant smells like rose compared to this recent debacle, with the perception of collusion, and favortism in my opinion.
Jack Baillargeron
12:10 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Now we look at the fallacy of there being fairness in the BCWA inner workings. Do you keep voting for the same law firm, because thats the only one you want? Does this not sound like a "Hugo Chavez" election where you re-do the vote until you get the one you want? Sounds very fishy other there at the BCWA.
The BCWA wonders out loud all the time why they have a perception of no cofidence from the public. GUESS WHAT THIS IS WHY!!!!!
When you publicy State that you think Macks Law Firm, no matter what Firm she moves to, must be the most qualified because she says so. Well the public must assume that the current Lawyer for the BCWA must be either clueless of the Rules to even advise on a simplistic thing such as a Vote by the Board. After 20 years she has never told the Board to read the State regulation on these Votes? Obviously she has not and if she has, it begs the question; why would Mack not tell them after a vote for her law firm was knowingly illegal. Is it ethical to let an illegal Vote for your law firm go forward and hope no-one finds out. Because that sure as heck is what it looks like in my opinion.
Frankly if I was one of the other law firms I would file a case of discrinitory practices at the BCWA in the Bidding process with the State Labor Board and get a Court injunction to stop this being voted on again. The Mack Law firm should be out of the running just because of the appearence of collusion, again in my opinion.
Jack Baillargeron
12:22 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Might also be a good thing to file an ethics complaint with the "RI Bar Association".
For some board members to rave incessently about the credentials of Mack and Mack's knowledge due to Mack representing then for 20 years is also suspect as to why. With so many problems exposed in the legal workings and the failures of Mack on legal issues, the question is, WHY DO THEY DO IT?
What has really changed at the BCWA? It looks like the New director wants Mack and no-one else, so like Delise she gets what ever she wants and the Board representing the Ratepayers and taxpayers get ignored as usual?
Since when does a Utility owned by the Ratepayers/Taxpayers steamroll over them with out the Town Councils opening their mouths and demanding this be resolved in a fair way to the Ratepayers/Taxpayers and other Law firms who bid in good faith that went out the perverbial window.
Fairness and rules be damned as far as I can see with the BCWA.
Manifold Witness
1:12 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Is the Chairman of the Board
maybe on a beach
in a Speedo?
Incommunicado?
No room for technology?
And so
the water works
are at a stand still?
No one capable of obtaining an answer
to a simple question
that the Executive Director said SHE asked?
(So why wasn't the answer directed to her?)
A question that the lawyer should have answered
at the meeting where they voted her out?
But, alas, at any rate
BCWA finally, finally,
has the answer in hand
all the way from Providence -
that faraway land.
And so now
we finally know
the answer
to that age-old question,
"Just how stupid do they think the ratepayers are?"
(These being the same ratepayers-
we now remind the BCWA-
who answered the question
properly
and for free
two weeks ago.)
DownTown
6:23 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Mack represented both the BCWA and RWU in the water tower agreement. That is a ethics violation. Why is no one at the BCWA concerned with that?
Jack Baillargeron
11:32 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
You do have to wonder Downtown, why law enforcement is not looking at all this in my opinion.
Bob Venice
11:01 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
All this is telling me that no one in power really cares what people say on Patch. It also tells me that by the poor showings at BCWA meetings, Town Council meetings, Town financial meetings, that the citizens don't care about how things are run. I have had it. I will never post another blog. I'm retiring into my backyard where I can breath in that nice odor of goats. God Bless you all.
Lorraine F
9:57 am on Monday, February 4, 2013
Bob,
I love reading your comments. I know the indifference of others is difficult to deal with, but for those who do care, people appreciate engaged bloggers (on both sides of the subject).
Jack Baillargeron
12:12 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
Well I agree Bob that many do not speak out, there are varity of reasons for it that are not their fault. It is not easy for people to speak at meeting as they have a fear of speaking publicly. This applies to I believe I read about 90% of the population of the Country. It is just a human condition.
I have also read the same for people blogging comments on on political issues because of the paranoid thing of friends finding out a few that they may not agree with. That is sad but it also happens a lot. I know many who emial me or I have talked to that just can't do it. Especially long time resididents.
I do not fault them for this since in the 45 years I played out and sang in front of crowds, there were times when I was scared as could be. Don't know why just happened a few times. I do wish our politicians would speak out more on these issues like the BCWA and speak directly and to the point with no double talk.
It would be sad if you quit commenting on issues Bob, because I assure you the politicians and those in power do read them. Not to mention if it makes one person look at your comments and say, hey he is right and it may make them go to a meeting on the issue you are discussing or speak out themselves. It that not worth your time, since like me I assume you have that time.
Please continue to post, and remember that those who do not speak are not heard
;-}.
Jack Baillargeron
12:14 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
PS. Being a thorn in the side of the powers that be is a great feeling I think any way lol.